DOCSLIB.ORG

June 17 Land

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
June 17 Land LEVEL 6 - UNIT 9 – LAND LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS – JUNE 2017 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the June 2017 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1 The first step to any claim based on adverse possession is that the claimant must prove that they have satisfied three fundamental requirements. As stated in Powell v MacFarlane (1979) and reaffirmed in the House of Lords in Pye v Graham (2002), these are factual possession, an intention to possess the land and the possession must be adverse. Factual possession is effectively exclusive possession (Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran (1990)). The requirement is that the claimant has a sufficient degree of physical possession and control of the land. The level required will depend on the nature and quality of the land in question. The claimant must also have been dealing with the land for his or her own benefit as the paper title owner might have done (Powell v MacFarlane). Although it is fact specific, enclosure by a fence or wall is sound evidence of factual possession (Seddon v Smith (1877)). An intention to possess requires an intention to exclude the world including the paper title owner, as far as it is reasonably practical to do so. It does not require that the claimant had the intention to own for the requisite period, without the consent of the legal paper title owner (approved by the House of Lords in Pye v Graham (2003)). Demonstration of the intention must be by evidence of outward conduct (Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc (1999)). Furthermore, acknowledgement of the legal paper title’s ownership defeats the claim of intention (e.g. Colchester Borough Council v Smith 1992 CA Lambeth LBC v Bigden (2000), Ofulue v Bossert (2009)). Possession must be adverse, although Pye discards any special meaning of ‘adverse’; this requires that the possession must be without the owner’s consent (e.g.Lambeth London Borough Council v Bigden (2000), Ofulue v Bossert (2009). Page 1 of 18 If a squatter satisfies these fundamental requirements over land that is unregistered any claim based on adverse possession is governed by the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which sets out a limited period of time after which the unregistered owner may not bring any action against the squatter to recover his land. The usual limitation period required is that of 12 years (s15 LA 1980), subject to certain exceptions (e.g. Sole charitable organisation, Crown land, foreshore, and land held in trust with a remainderman). Once the squatter has been in adverse possession for 12 years, the unregistered owner’s paper title and right to sue is automatically, statutorily extinguished (s17 LA 1980) and the squatter becomes the new legal owner. Therefore, a squatter in unregistered land is highly likely to succeed since he need only show that he has satisfied the requirements of adverse possession for a continuous period of 12 years. Where the squatter claims adverse possession in registered land, any claim is governed by the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), which significantly reformed the effects of adverse possession on the legal registered owner. Furthermore, where adverse possession is completed after 13 October 2002, the date at which the LRA 2002 came into force, the paper owner’s title is not automatically extinguished. Moreover, unlike the position in unregistered land, there is no limitation period in which a registered owner can lose his title merely because a squatter is in adverse possession for a fixed period of time (s96 LRA 2002). Instead, under Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002, a squatter can make an application to the Land Registrar to be registered as proprietor if they have at least 10 years’ adverse possession. If the Registrar is of the view that the squatter has an arguable case to be registered, this will trigger a notice sent to the current registered legal estate owner (and to other interested parties such as mortgagees). The registered landowner will then have 65 days within which he can respond in three ways. He can consent to the squatter’s application in which case the squatter will be registered. He can simply object, perhaps on the basis that adverse possession is not made out as the squatter lacks the necessary factual intention, in which case the application is halted until the objection is resolved. The better response is for the registered landowner to object and use the final option, which is to serve a counter-notice. If the registered landowner (or other interested party) makes no response, the squatter will be registered as proprietor, so it is important that he objects. The counter-notice requires that the Registrar deal with the application according to para 5 Schedule 6 to the 2002 Act. If this is the case, the squatter will only be registered as proprietor of the land if the Registrar is satisfied that the squatter’s case falls within one of three grounds. Firstly, that the squatter is entitled to some form of estoppel based on unconscionability. Secondly, the squatter is entitled for some other reason (for example an incomplete contract for the sale and purchase of the registered land, or where the squatter is entitled under a will of the deceased proprietor). Thirdly, the claim relates to a boundary dispute between the neighbouring squatter’s land and the registered owner’s land. The Schedule provides, inter alia, that the squatter must reasonably have believed the land belonged to her. The overall effect is that the squatter even with adverse possession is unable to be registered as the new owner unless one of the three exceptional grounds is proven. Page 2 of 18 Significantly, if the squatter’s claim does not fall within one of the three categories since an application to be registered has been made, the registered landowner has an automatic right to a further two years in which to take court action to repossess the land. This right applies regardless of how long the squatter has been in adverse possession. Furthermore, the action requires merely that the registered owner prove his title by his paper registration. It is only if after the two-year period the squatter manages to stay in possession he will be able to be registered as proprietor. It should also be noted that under s144(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 the new criminal offence for squatting in residential premises does not mean that a squatter charged with this offence cannot claim title by way of adverse possession; illegality does not impact on registration of title under LRA 2002 (Best v Chief Land Registrar (2014)). However, it possibly makes it easier for any landowner to evict the squatter. It can clearly be seen that a squatter is much more likely to succeed in a claim for adverse possession over unregistered land than registered land. This is especially so given the fact that there is no automatic extinction of the registered owners title; no limitation period; the LRA 2002 is based on a system of application by the squatter and notification to the registered owner; difficult grounds to satisfy; and a further 2 year grace period in which the registered owner can take action of recovery. The fact that it is harder to be successful as an adverse possessor of registered land should not come as a total surprise given that the founding principle of the LRA 2002 is that title guaranteed by the State should not be easily defeated by a ‘mere’ squatter’s possession. Question 2 Generally, a person in actual occupation of the land is either a tenant or a mere licensee, which depends on the construction and interpretation of the agreement. A lease, or term of years absolute, is capable of existing at law as one of two legal estates (s1 Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925)), as such, they are proprietary rights and capable of binding third party purchasers who acquire the freehold. In contrast, a licence is merely a personal right that is not capable of binding third parties (Lloyd v Dugdale (2001)). Furthermore, a licensee cannot avail themselves of various statutory protections, such as the right to be protected from eviction (Protection from Eviction Act 1977). In order for an agreement to amount to a lease, it must satisfy the requirements laid out by Lord Templeman in Street v Mountford (1985). The occupier must have exclusive possession of the property, for a certain term, at a rent. It should also be pointed out that it is now clear that payment of rent is no longer a necessary requirement as confirmed in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (1989) applying s205 LPA 1925 (see also Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body (1992)). However, generally residential leases require the payment of a rent such as periodic tenancies, in which case the date for payment in each period must be certain. Certainty of term requires that occupation of the land is certain as to when it begins and ends.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property Law Notes
    Property Law Notes Part 1 out of 2 [125 pages] Contents: Definitions: What is Property? Distribution of Property Taxonomy Possession + Interference with Possession + Relativity of Title Ownership Tenure and Estates Introduction to Freehold & Leasehold Covenants Personal Property Rights: Security Interests Fixtures and Mixtures Sale of Goods Creation and Transfer + Formalities + Conveyancing Priorities at Common Law + Priorities in Equity Easements and Profits 1 What is Property? Right in rem = a right to a thing which is enforceable generally against other members of society. Right in personam = a right to a thing which is enforceable only against specific persons. The division between property rights and personal rights is based on the enforceability of that right. Wide definition – assignability of rights: Most rights in rem and rights in personam can be transferred to others, and most have value. If can be assigned to third parties, indicates they might be proprietary in nature. A right that can be transferred to others may have value because it can be sold. These rights count as assets. Can consciously/actively assign property rights, or might be assigned to a third party by operation of law: o Death (intestacy provisions or will) o Bankruptcy (Insolvency Act, property is assigned/transferred to trustee in bankruptcy) o Wealth Some in rem rights can’t be assigned so wouldn’t be recognised as proprietary under the wider definition of assignability. Some things are in rem proprietary rights that can’t be assigned, e.g. non-assignable lease, easement (if you don’t have the DT or ST). One way to destroy an in rem right is to destroy the thing to which it relates.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 73: Unilateral Severance of a Joint Tenancy
    NSW Law Reform Commission: REPORT 73 (1994) - UNILATERAL SEVERANCE OF A JOINT TENANCY NSW Law Reform Commission REPORT 73 (1994) - UNILATERAL SEVERANCE OF A JOINT TENANCY Table of Contents Table of Contents....................................................................................................... 1 Terms of Reference and Participants......................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................. 6 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 8 2. Background .......................................................................................................... 10 3. Existing Methods of Unilateral Severance............................................................ 14 4. Shortcomings of the Existing Modes of Effecting Unilateral Severance ............... 20 5. Why Should Unilateral Severance be Simplified? ................................................ 28 6. Reform in Other Jurisdictions ............................................................................... 32 7. Recommendation: Unilateral Severance by Registration of a Declaration of Severance ................................................................................................................ 35 8. Features of the System of Severance
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Homes: a Discussion Paper
    The Law Commission (LAW COM No 278) SHARING HOMES A Discussion Paper Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty November 2002 Cm xxxx The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman 1 Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This Discussion Paper was first published online on 18 July 2002. The text of this Discussion Paper is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk 1 At the date this report was signed, the Chairman of the Law Commission was the Right Honourable Lord Justice Carnwath CVO. ii THE LAW COMMISSION SHARING HOMES A Discussion Paper CONTENTS Paragraph Page Executive Summary vi PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The shared home 1.6 2 A property-based approach 1.23 6 PART II: THE CURRENT LAW 9 Introduction 2.1 9 Trusts of land 2.4 10 Legal and beneficial ownership of the shared home 2.10 11 Legal title – joint tenancy 2.12 11 Beneficial ownership- joint tenancy or tenancy in common 2.16 12 Resolution of disputes between trustees and beneficiaries 2.23 14 Dealings with third parties 2.27 15 Occupation of the shared home 2.32 17 Where a person has an interest under a trust of land 2.34 17 Matrimonial home rights 2.37 18 Orders regulating
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 9 – Land Law Suggested Answers - June 2016
    LEVEL 6 - UNIT 9 – LAND LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JUNE 2016 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the June 2016 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1 (a) Section 205 of the Law of Property Act 1925 defines ‘land’ as including, inter alia, all corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments. This includes the land itself, buildings, and things forming a physical part of the land and buildings, as well as rights appurtenant to the estate. Assuming that the transfer is of only the estate (i.e. there is no provision in the contract for the transfer of fixtures and fittings), the purchaser will acquire, in terms of corporeal hereditaments, fixtures (but not fittings)and fructus naturales (not fructus industriales).Incorporeal hereditaments are those rights which benefit the estate, such as easements and restrictive covenants. The benefit of these rights will be deemed to form a part of any conveyance of the estate in the absence of words to the contrary (s62 Law of Property Act 1925).
    [Show full text]
  • June 17 Land
    Chief Examiner’s Report The purpose of the report is to provide feedback to centres and candidates on the candidates’ performance in the examination with recommendations about how any issues identified may be addressed. The target audience for this report are centre tutors and candidates. The report should be read in conjunction with the Suggested Answers for the examination. Unit Name: Level 6 Unit 9 Land Law Exam Session: June 2017 CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE OVERALL Candidate performance was of a very good standard with a pass rate of 64%. It should be noted that this is an improvement on the pass rate of the previous two examination sittings and with a higher number of candidates achieving grades of merit and distinction. Higher achieving candidates demonstrated not only breadth but also a depth of sound knowledge and application of the rules and principles that govern land law and as a consequence were able to answer four questions to a consistently high standard. However, it was evident that those who performed less well, including those who failed, were unable to provide four consistently good answers often producing only one or two to the requisite standard. As previously reported, common issues found in relation to both problem questions and essays include candidates failing to tailor their answer to the specific question either writing all they know on a topic or providing generic rote learnt answers. These answers achieved few, if any, marks due to the vast amount of irrelevant legal content. Furthermore, quoting sections of material from the statute books also achieves no marks, no matter how accurately recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • Project No 78
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Project No 78 Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common REPORT NOVEMBER 1994 The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia was established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1972. Commissioners Chairman Mr P G Creighton BJuris (Hons) LLB (Hons) (Western Australia) BCL (Oxford) Members Dr P R Handford LLB (Birmingham) LLM PhD (Cambridge) Ms C J McLure BJuris (Hons) LLB (Hons) (Western Australia) BCL (Oxford) Officers Executive Officer and Director of Research Dr P R Handford LLB (Birmingham) LLM PhD (Cambridge) Research Officers Mr M G Boylson LLB (Western Australia) Mr A A Head LLB (Western Australia) Staff Mrs S K Blakey Ms K L Chamberlain Mr L McNamara BA (Murdoch) Ms M A Ryan The Commission's offices are on the 11th Floor, London House, 216 St George's Terrace, Perth, Western Australia, 6000. Telephone: (09) 481 3711. Facsimile: (09) 481 4197. _____________________ A draft of this Report was prepared with the special assistance of Dr J Mugambwa LLB (Hons) (Makerere), LLM (Yale), PhD (Australian National University), Senior Lecturer in Law in the Law School at Murdoch University. The Commission is much indebted to him for his valuable work on the Draft Report. To: HON C L EDWARDES MLA ATTORNEY GENERAL In accordance with the provisions of section 11(3)(b) of the Law Reform Commission Act 1972, I am pleased to present the Commission's report on various aspects of the law relating to joint tenancies and tenancies in common of real and personal property in law and equity. PG CREIGHTON, Chairman 22 NOVEMBER 1994 CONTENTS Paragraph Table of abbreviations CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Law Lawcards 2012-2013
    Land Law 2012–2013 223657.indb3657.indb i 110/28/110/28/11 3:263:26 PMPM Eighth edition published 2012 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2012 Routledge All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Cavendish Publishing Limited 1997 Seventh edition published by Routledge 2010 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978–0–415–68343–2 (pbk) ISBN: 978–0–203–30845–5 (ebk) Typeset in Rotis by Refi neCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk 23657.indb ii 10/28/11 3:26 PM Contents Table of Cases v Table of Statutes xv Table of Statutory Instruments xxiii Table of European Legislation xxv Abbreviations xxvii How to use this book xxix 1 Fundamental concepts 1 2 Conveying title to land with unregistered title 11 3 Transferring title to land with registered title 19 4 Adverse possession and boundaries 31 5 Trusts of land 39 6 Resulting trusts, constructive trusts, proprietary estoppel and licences 53 7 Leases 67 8 Mortgages 85 9 Easements and profi ts à prendre 97 10 Freehold covenants 109 11 Putting it into practice .
    [Show full text]
  • Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 191 INTESTACY AND FAMILY PROVISION CLAIMS ON DEATH A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission for England and Wales was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell and Professor Jeremy Horder. Kenneth Parker QC was a Law Commissioner when the text of this paper was finalised, on 30 September 2009. The Chief Executive is Mr Mark Ormerod CB. Topic of this consultation: This Consultation Paper reviews the intestacy rules and the law of family provision claims on death. The intestacy rules, contained in the Administration of Estates Act 1925, apply when a person dies without disposing of all his or her property by will, and they determine how that person’s property is to be inherited. Whether or not the person who died left a valid will, certain family members and dependants may make a claim against the estate for reasonable financial provision. These claims are made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. We discuss the current law and set out a number of provisional proposals and options for reform on which we invite consultees’ views. Scope of this consultation: The purpose of this consultation is to generate responses to our discussion, provisional proposals and questions with a view to making recommendations for reform to Parliament. Our proposals and questions are listed in Part 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Land
    ‘The text is clear and easy to understand. It explains the issues very well indeed without over-simplifying fundamental points.’ Introduction to Land Law Introduction Dr Janine Griffi ths-Baker, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Bristol ‘A clear, concise and accurate introductory text written by a leading authority in land law.’ Introduction to Dr Antonia Layard, Lecturer, School of Law, Cardiff University ‘Comprehensive and well-structured.’ Shan Cole, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Glamorgan Land Law Roger Smith’s Introduction to Land Law presents a SECOND EDITION straightforward account of the law and its effects, giving a clear and accessible explanation of concepts students often fi nd diffi cult to grasp. It illuminates the interesting and thought-provoking issues stemming from land law. Roger J. Smith A unique chapter structure allows students to understand the fundamental place and practice of each subject area before delving into some of the deeper matters they will be expected to engage with throughout their course: • Nature and importance sets out, by use of examples, how the law functions and why it is important. Do you want to give yourself a head start come • Main issues and rules clearly explains the key exam time? principles in detail, including case analysis and diagrams where helpful. • Critical and controversial issues introduces areas Visit www.mylawchamber.co.uk/smithintro of topical debate and controversy, outlining the key to access interactive quizzes, sample issues and arguments, then encouraging students to exam questions with answer guidance, and form their own assessment of the law in each area.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Law Cases
    TABLE OF CASES UK Cases ...................................................................................................................................... 2 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X-Z US Cases ...................................................................................................................................... 81 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X-Z Australian Cases ....................................................................................................................... 168 Canadian Cases .......................................................................................................................... 171 New Zealand Cases ................................................................................................................... 174 1 back to the top TABLE OF UK CASES A A Ketley Ltd v Scott [1981] ICR 241, 130 NLJ 749 Abbey Homesteads Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1982) 263 EG 983, 264 EG 151, 154, [1982] 2 EGLR 18 (LT) Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, [1990] 1 All ER 1085 (HL) Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, [1990] 1 All ER 1085, 1101 (HL) Abernethie v AM and J Kleiman Ltd (1969) 211 EG 405, [1970] 1 QB 10 Abram Steamship Co v Westvill Shipping Co [1923] AC 773, 781 (HL) Ackland v Lutley (1839) 9 Ed & El 879, 894, 112 Eng Rep 1446 Acton v Blundell (1843) 12 M & W 324, 152 Eng Rep 1223 Adagio Properties Ltd v Ansari [1998] 35 EG 86 (CA) Adams and Wade Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Land Law
    Principles of Land Law Fourth Edition Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD PRINCIPLES OF LAW SERIES Professor Paul Dobson Visiting Professor at Anglia Polytechnic University Professor Nigel Gravells Professor of English Law, Nottingham University Professor Phillip Kenny Professor and Head of the Law School, Northumbria University Professor Richard Kidner Professor and Head of the Law Department, University of Wales, Aberystwyth In order to ensure that the material presented by each title maintains the necessary balance between thoroughness in content and accessibility in arrangement, each title in the series has been read and approved by an independent specialist under the aegis of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board oversees the development of the series as a whole, ensuring a conformity in all these vital aspects. Principles of Land Law Fourth Edition Martin Dixon, MA Fellow and University Senior Lecturer in Law Queens’ College, University of Cambridge Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney Fourth edition first published in Great Britain 2002 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com © Dixon, Martin 2002 First edition 1994 Second edition 1996 Third edition 1999 Fourth edition 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Land Law
    MODERN LAND LAW Sixth Edition Modern Land Law provides a user-friendly yet comprehensive account of this foundation subject. Explaining land law in an understandable and logical fashion, this new edition has been substantially rewritten and revised to take into account developments since the publication of the last edition in 2005. In addition, each chapter has been expanded and updated to include an analysis of the most recent case law including Doherty v. Birmingham City Council and Yeoman’s Row Management v. Cobbe. Written with students in mind, key features of this textbook include: ● a clear introduction to each chapter ● concise and understandable treatment of all the major topics covered on an undergraduate course ● a concluding summary to each chapter ● in-depth coverage of recent significant developments ● increased use of tables and diagrams to aid understanding of complicated topics. Modern Land Law provides a readable, clear and thorough exposition of the principles of land law. Comprehensive yet succinct it is the perfect text for an undergraduate course. Dr Martin Dixon is Reader in the Law of Real Property at Cambridge University and a Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge. He is visiting Professor of Law at City University, London. He examines and writes exten- sively on property law and is the editor of The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, the leading property law journal. He is also an author of Ruoff and Roper: The Law of Registered Conveyancing, the authoritative text on the modern land registration. MODERN LAND LAW Sixth Edition Dr Martin Dixon Sixth edition first published 2009 by Routledge-Cavendish 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge-Cavendish 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY10016 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2009.
    [Show full text]